Monday, November 16, 2009

The question in my mind at that point was, is all generalization bigotry? . . . Saying that the sky is blue is a generalization. That is not bigotry.

It is not the case that all generalization is bigotry.

"All bachelors are unmarried"

Or

Take the claim, "All atheists believe that the proposition, 'At least one God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false."

Both of these are generalizations, but they are not the type of generalization that would count as bigotry. They are not even the count of generalization that will count as false.

Or, let us take the claim, "All swans are white"

It is a generalization. It also happens to be false. However, a person who believes this is not a bigot. She is not even bigoted against swans. She just happens to believe something about swans that happens not to be true.

Even false generalizations about people - men have one fewer rib than women - if believed, would not count as bigotry.

So, what does count as bigotry?

The fact that bigotry is a legitimate object of moral condemnation means that bigotry has something to do with desires. Specifically, the bigot demonstrates by his actions that he has desires a good person would not have, or lacks desires that a good person would have. Furthermore, these desires tend to thwart the desires of others.

Ultimately, bigots aim to sacrifice the desires of the target group for their own benefit. They seek to create a society in which whites rules over blacks, men rule over women, where only heterosexual relationships are given social recognition, or where only theists can get elected to public office. They do so by making unjust and unjustified claims about the target group that aim to justify this attempt to divide society into classes, a superior class of "us" and an inferior class of "them". Of course, the bigot's group is always the superior "us" group.

Bigotry involves denigrating people - devaluing them, making them an object of contempt or ridicule - based on general claims that are false or sometimes false. It involves an unfounded and reasonable claim that "they" are not as good as "we". The bigot may claim that the target group shares some characteristic good people have reason to condemn (e.g., they are responsible for the Holocaust). Or it may be that the target group has some deficiency of some sort that they are not to be blamed for, but still makes them less capable (they lack intelligence).

It is not bigotry when these statements are true. All murderers unjustly take an innocent life. It is a true statement, and it is a statement that identifies the target group (murderers) as people who are to be looked down upon. In this case, they share a moral failing.

Liars are parasites who feed off of the will of others for the fulfillment of their own desires. This is another generalization that happens to be true and, thus, do not count as bigotry.

Young children lack the capacity of reason and, thus, are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Those decisions instead should be trusted to a competent adult who shall act in the best interests of the child. Again, this is a generalization about a deficiency that happens to be true. It is not bigotry. It is not bigotry even though we may find a few instances in which it is false. This is because we have good reason to make this generalization - that this is a generalization that even a person with good desires (a desire to protect children) would make.

In all cases of bigotry, the generalization is unfounded. It does not represent a conclusion based on an objective, fair, and impartial view of the evidence. It is a generalization grounded on the generalizer's own desire to see himself as superior.

This topic came up in this blog because of my condemnation of the anti-theist bigot. It is an attitude that I hold to be too common among vocal atheists that "we" are the superior group and "they" are the inferior group, where "their" inferiority is justified by means of arguments that are invalid (and the conclusion is unjustified). It is an attempt to hold all people who believe in a God morally responsible for the 9/11 attacks or the Fort Hood massacre because it feeds this desire to view "us" as morally superior to "them".

It has also come up recently in the actions of several branches of the Catholic Church promoting anti-gay bigotry. And we can see bigotry written into the National Motto (“We who trust in God are superior to those who do not”) and the Pledge of Allegiance (all good Americans promote “one nation under God”).

If a generalization can be defended as true, or at least well motivated – or if it is a generalization that has nothing to do with denigrating a group of individual and casting them as inferior – then it is not bigotry.

20 comments:

This is not the first time you've come down pretty hard on Atheists. Though your points are valid and understandable, as I read through your blogs, I am filled with curiosity as to what particular groups or individuals you are making reference to. Who, in your opinion, are these Atheist bigots? Some examples would be helpful, though not required.

Eneasz - thanks. I know of that billboard (or flyer). It is promoted on Richard Dawkins' website. I don't find it so terrible, so perhaps I'm one of those Atheist bigots.

I happen to agree with Nobel prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg, who said, "With or without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

"It is an attitude that I hold to be too common among vocal atheists that "we" are the superior group and "they" are the inferior group, where "their" inferiority is justified by means of arguments that are invalid (and the conclusion is unjustified)."

I wish you would provide some evidence that atheist bigotry is *in fact* as common as you make it out to be. So far, in all this, you have not even provided a single quote. Nor have you shown that such quotes, if you can produce them, are representative of a significantly large (like more than 5%, say) portion of unapologetic atheists. You haven't even shown that the popular atheists such as Dawkins et al. fall into the 'bigot' category.

Alonzo claims of that billboard: "The most important level, however, is that it promotes a belief that is as absurd as any religion. It says that religion is a necessary for violent acts and, without religion, violent acts will not take place."

This is false. The billboard does not promote such an extreme interpretation. At most you could say that it promotes that 'religion *has* inspired violent actions and, without religion, those specific violent actions (such as the WTC attacks) would not have occurred.'

That billboard is not an example of bigotry. It does not say, "Imagine no religious people." for example, which I would consider bigoted, as would a sign which says, "Imagine no Jews."

I am not coming down hard on atheists at all. I am coming down hard on bigots, I am only coming down on atheists to the degree that some atheists are bigots. If it is the case (as some commenters seem to want to contend - perhaps because they hold that atheists are incapable of having moral flaws) that no atheists are bigots, then clearly there cannot be even one real-world atheist that fits the account I give of a bigot.

I have not named names because I was interested in the overall concept rather than applying it. Clearly, I do not need to name actual rapists to discuss the wrongness of rape, or identify a specific liar to point out that liars are parasites who feed off of the manipulated intentional actions of others. Nor do I need to identify specific atheist bigots to identify what bigotry is and what it is not.

However, Eneasz is right - the poster that shows the World Trade Center still standing with the text "Imagine No Religion" - which was prominently displayed on Richard Dawson's web site and at the Freedom From Religion Foundation - qualifies as bigotry. It takes a specific wrong and applies it to a whole group of people many of whom are innocent of that wrong. It is done for the purpose of selling unjustified hatred (hate mongering, as I call it).

Steven Weinberg's quote also counts. There are far too many ways other than religion for good people to do bad things. Bill Mahar, with his crusade against government immunizations, will be responsible for a few deaths. I know any number of parents who think they are doing the right thing in NOT getting their child immunized or even going to flu parties. Some will get their child killed and, for some, the disease will use the child as a conduit to somebody else with a health problem who will die. Good people doing bad things without religion playing any role whatsoever.

PZ Myers, with his quest to dessicrate a communion wafer, was able to justify what amounted to the theft of property from the Catholic Church on the grounds that taking property from a Catholic Church under false pretenses is not theft. (Fraud, to be more precise.) History makes me worry how far up the ladder of moral crimes one can excuse when the victims belong to a target group of "them".

The reason that I warn against atheists adopting bigoted practices is that I believe most of my readers are atheists and, thus, it is the type of bigotry against which I can have the most effect. I also believe that bigotry is grounded on fundamental facts about human nature - a human disposition (that atheists share, since atheists are human) to divide the world into groups of "us" and "them" that too easily leads to inter-tribal violence unless effort is taken to prevent it.

The violence we see between religious groups is NOT dependent on any Gods. That violence came about even though no God exists - because humans - without any God to guide them - are disposed to divide the world up into 'us' and 'them' and to rally 'us' to do violence against 'them'.

One of these days, if we are not careful, we will be dealing with a very real news story about an atheist shooter who decided to go out in a blaze of glory by taking as many of "them" with him as possible. And the question would and should be asked. As atheists, did we do anything to prevent or discourage that line of thinking?

"Clearly, I do not need to name actual rapists to discuss the wrongness of rape, or identify a specific liar to point out that liars are parasites who feed off of the manipulated intentional actions of others. Nor do I need to identify specific atheist bigots to identify what bigotry is and what it is not."

That would be fine, if that was all you did. But you took it a step further with the following claim:

"It is an attitude that I hold to be too common among vocal atheists that "we" are the superior group and "they" are the inferior group, where "their" inferiority is justified by means of arguments that are invalid (and the conclusion is unjustified)."

Why do you hold it to be 'too common'? Do you have evidence that it is even common at all, let alone 'too' common?

Once you've made such a claim, it is fair for me to ask for evidence that it's true. Naming names would be a good start to defending your claim.

"If it is the case (as some commenters seem to want to contend - perhaps because they hold that atheists are incapable of having moral flaws) that no atheists are bigots"

Who has claimed this? Not I. Point out a bigot and I will join you in condemning them. I am only claiming that what you see as 'bigotry' is often misinterpreted unapologetics. Case in point, re billboard:

"It takes a specific wrong and applies it to a whole group of people many of whom are innocent of that wrong."

No, it doesn't apply it to a group of people, it applies it to religion itself. On this topic, you have continually conflated criticism of beliefs, dogmas, and institutions with attacks on people. People are not beliefs. Beliefs are not people. Saying "Imagine no religion" is qualitatively different than saying "Imagine no religious people."

"It is done for the purpose of selling unjustified hatred (hate mongering, as I call it)."

This is a completely unjustified claim. It is manifestly *not* intended to sell hate. It is intended to raise consciousness to the dangers of religion. Religion is not a person, or even a group of people. Attacking religion is not the same as attacking people.

This is not bigotry, it is unapologetic criticism of religion.

"Steven Weinberg's quote also counts. There are far too many ways other than religion for good people to do bad things."

Again, he criticizes religion, not religious people. If he's wrong in his over-generalization (which I agree, he is) then he's wrong, but that doesn't make him a bigot. A bigoted statement would be: "but for evil to be done in the name of good, that takes religious people." But that's not what he said.

Religion itself cannot be a victim of bigotry. It is not a person. It is not even a group of people. Jewish people are not Judaism. Judaism is not Jewish people. Criticizing or ridiculing Judaism is not anti-semitism or racism or bigotry or hatred. Same goes for any other religion.

"PZ Myers, with his quest to dessicrate a communion wafer, was able to justify what amounted to the theft of property from the Catholic Church on the grounds that taking property from a Catholic Church under false pretenses is not theft."

Theft (which you've not established, only accused) and desecration are again not bigotry. Even if he's guilty of theft, that does not amount to bigotry.

"History makes me worry how far up the ladder of moral crimes one can excuse when the victims belong to a target group of "them"."

Now who's fear- and hate-mongering? This 'slippery slope' argument is lame and completely unjustified.

"One of these days, if we are not careful, we will be dealing with a very real news story about an atheist shooter who decided to go out in a blaze of glory by taking as many of "them" with him as possible. And the question would and should be asked. As atheists, did we do anything to prevent or discourage that line of thinking?"

None of the atheists you've mentioned advocate violence, oppression, or terrorism. (Hitchens may be an outlier in advocating the Iraq war, but otherwise he is against oppression and tyranny.) In fact, they are strongly against it.

Your 'careful, you might inspire a terrorist' rhetoric here is completely misrepresenting these people. You are dangerously close to committing the bigot's fallacy yourself.

Saying that religion has inspired violence, that religion can cause good people to do bad things, that a cracker is just a cracker and nothing more, are in no way equivalent to advocating violence, suppression, oppression, censorship, fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, terrorism, or any of the other terrible things you are hinting at.

The unapologetic atheists I know are all strongly against these things. They are humanistic, not de-humanizing.

You are confusing blasphemy with human rights violations. I say again, point out a real case of bigotry, and I'll join you in condemning it.

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Anyone who thinks it isn't has some explaining to do.

So a criticism of religion is not a criticism on those who subscribe to that religion? It is not a criticism of their mental state or a condemnation of their beliefs and identity? Is criticism of religion only criticism of an abstract which in no way reflects upon the people associated with that religion or with religion in general?

Is the act of asking people to "Imagine no religion" while drawing a metaphorical line to an atrocity inspired by a subset of one religion not supposed to defame all religion and all believers in religion?

anticant, your statement can cut both ways though. A person's religious beliefs may prevent him from doing evil or encourage him to do good. It is pointless to criticize religion as if all religion is the same or all religious people are the same. Why not criticize a specific, harmful religious ideology instead of criticizing religion in general?

No, it doesn't apply it to a group of people, it applies it to religion itself [...] People are not beliefs. Beliefs are not people. Saying "Imagine no religion" is qualitatively different than saying "Imagine no religious people."

An effective technique to combat unseen bias is to turn a situation around and see how you would feel if it was applied to you.

If a theist organization purchased a billboard with a picture of Stalin and the words "Imagine no atheism", would you feel you were being treated fairly?

It is manifestly *not* intended to sell hate. It is intended to raise consciousness to the dangers of religion.

Isn't "raising consciousness about dangers" the same thing as "creating fear"? It should be, people have good reason to be afraid of dangerous things. The question arises - is the speaker justified in creating this fear? There is real reason to fear AIDS, drunk drivers, and leaking natural gas. People who warn others of these dangers are helping to save our lives. If, OTOH, they are creating fear of a group that one has no good reason to fear, they are spreading fear and hate for no good reason and should be condemned.

If he's wrong in his over-generalization (which I agree, he is) then he's wrong, but that doesn't make him a bigot.

If someone says "but for evil to be done in the name of good - that takes black people" he is wrong. And an error of such magnitude should immediately make people say "WTF?? Why would he say something so obviously wrong??". Bigotry is a very likely reason. Saying that didn't make him a bigot, it merely revealed that he already was a bigot.

RE: PZ & Cracker-gateTheft (which you've not established, only accused) and desecration are again not bigotry. Even if he's guilty of theft, that does not amount to bigotry.

Yes, those things are not bigotry. What IS bigotry is the response of hundreds of atheists who say "That was not theft!"

Don't get me wrong, I believe that sometimes acts that are "wrong" on their face can be justified. A father who steals his neighbor's car to rush his son to the hospital is justified in doing so. A person who lies to Nazis to hide his Jewish neighbors is justified in doing so. A person who shoots an intruder to protect his family is justified in doing so.

And in this case, I feel that PZ was justified in stealing a cracker to protest the harassment and death-threats received by a young man who took a communion wafer from church to show his friend. It was theft, but it was for a greater cause.

However we should acknowledge that it WAS theft, and that it was only OK due to mitigating circumstances. Saying "It's not theft if you take a cracker" is a light form of bigotry. Own up to it and accept it.

This 'slippery slope' argument is lame and completely unjustified.

"Slippery slope" arguments are unjustified. But it's not unjustified to say "Hey guys, this is bigotry, let's not go down that road. We're better than that."

This generally goes both ways. A reader has a principle of charity to live up to, which dictates that he should not assume the worst of the writer and give him the benefit of the doubt. Communication, as you've said, is imprecise. However the writer/speaker also has a duty to not say things that will generally be interpreted in ways he claims he doesn't want. A competent writer should be able to tell how his statements will be read by his audience.

Emu Sam:"So a criticism of religion is not a criticism on those who subscribe to that religion?"

Nope. I don't see why it should be. Is an attack on a political party an attack on all the people who vote for that party, or even those who are active members of that party? No. To claim that it is would be to confuse an institution with the people who are members of that institution.

"It is not a criticism of their mental state or a condemnation of their beliefs and identity?"

Beliefs and identity are two separate things. It is a condemnation of their beliefs, but not their identity.

As for mental state, I don't consider mental illness to be shameful in any way, any more than physical illness is. Nor do I consider ignorance a shameful state. Ignorance is just lack of knowledge. Admitting ignorance is the first step toward learning new things. I myself am ignorant of many (countless!) things, and I'm not ashamed to admit my own ignorance. I love to learn.

However, our society has an unhealthy and irrational stigma and fear of ignorance. If I call someone ignorant of some fact, who is actually ignorant of that fact, I do not consider that bigoted, although I am sure many many people would think it is, due to this harmful stigma. I think unapologetically challenging this stigma is worthwhile, by using the word without any implied shame. For instance, if I point out the ignorance of evolution in intelligent design supporters, this is not bigotry. It may be controversial and taboo to make such a claim, but my intention is not to shame the person but to show that they do not in fact know what they are talking about.

Likewise, there is a stigma and fear of mental illness in our culture. However, I do not buy into that stigma. I myself in fact suffer from a mental illness, and there's no shame in that. I do not mind admitting it. It is not different than if I had cancer and I let people know I had a physical illness. I think challenging this harmful stigma is an important thing to do.

So, if, as part of being an unapologetic critic of religious belief, an atheist were to say something like "God is a delusion", then this may very well be a claim about the mental state of theists, but I do not agree that this is bigotry, because it is not intended to shame believers, but to bring to light the deceptive nature of faith-based belief in gods, and how it can lead to mental illness, namely delusion. I'm also aware that this is a controversial claim, and that theism is not officially recognized as a delusion by most mental health groups. Nevertheless, it is not a bigoted claim, because it is not intended to harm theists, just as pointing out the delusion of someone who believes he's Napoleon is not intended to harm that person.

"Is criticism of religion only criticism of an abstract which in no way reflects upon the people associated with that religion or with religion in general?"

This is such a convoluted question, I would ask you to clarify it with a concrete example. In general, however, I will say that critiques of religions are not necessarily attacks on the members of that religion. To prove it, I'll show that the converse also does not follow.

If I say, "Islam is a religion of peace," am I saying that all Muslims are peaceful? No. Am I even saying that *any* Muslims are peaceful? No. It may be the case that Islam truly is a religion of peace, but every single Muslim is violent (this is only a hypothetical). They are just not following the peaceful bits of Islam.

Likewise, if I say "Islam is a violent religion," am I saying that all Muslims are violent? No. Am I even saying that *any* Muslims are violent? No. It may be the case that Islam is a violent religion, but all Muslims are peaceful. They're just not following the violent bits.

Attacking the religion is just attacking the religion. The religion is not a person, it's not even a group of people.(contd)

"Is the act of asking people to "Imagine no religion" while drawing a metaphorical line to an atrocity inspired by a subset of one religion not supposed to defame all religion and all believers in religion?"

No. Why should it be? The most it can mean is that some religious beliefs can inspire terrorism, and therefore if those beliefs had not existed, that specific terrorism would not have happened.

"If a theist organization purchased a billboard with a picture of Stalin and the words "Imagine no atheism", would you feel you were being treated fairly?"

I would not feel that I have been 'treated' at all. The billboard would be criticizing atheism, not me or any atheist.

It would also be factually wrong, since atheism per se did not inspire Stalin's wrongdoing. However, correct or incorrect, it's not a bigoted message.

What *would* be bigoted would be a billboard with the quote "the fool says in his heart... he can do no good, he is corrupt, etc." This is clearly targeting actual non-believers as a monolithic group. But something like "atheism leads to sin and corruption" is not bigoted, even though it's superficially similar. It's false, but it's not bigoted.

"Imagine no religion" with the twin towers is functionally equivalent to "Imagine no relativity" with a picture of Hiroshima before the bomb. It is not saying that every scientist who believes in E=mc^2 is responsible for the bomb. It's not even saying that all science is bad, or that all uses of relativity are bad. It's saying that relativity (and science) can be used for very destructive purposes, and that without relativity, Hiroshima specifically would not have happened.

"Isn't "raising consciousness about dangers" the same thing as "creating fear"? ... If, OTOH, they are creating fear of a group that one has no good reason to fear, they are spreading fear and hate for no good reason and should be condemned."

I find it interesting that you shifted 'dangers of religion' to 'fear of religion' to 'fear of religious people'.

Raising consciousness of the dangers of religion is not the same as inciting fear of religious people.

Perhaps I should rephrase my motto for this discussion: Blasphemy is not bigotry. Anyone who thinks it is has some explaining to do.

"If someone says "but for evil to be done in the name of good - that takes black people" he is wrong. And an error of such magnitude should immediately make people say "WTF?? Why would he say something so obviously wrong??". Bigotry is a very likely reason. Saying that didn't make him a bigot, it merely revealed that he already was a bigot."

This makes no sense. Weinberg did not say "but for evil to be done in the name of good - that takes religious people", so your parallel with black people is irrelevant. You are misparaphrasing (is that even a word?? I don't know, but it's what you did) Weinberg based on my RE-phrasing. Weinberg targeted religion, not religious people. Read his statement again.

"Yes, those things are not bigotry. What IS bigotry is the response of hundreds of atheists who say "That was not theft!""

What?! Are you joking? That's the second silliest thing I've heard in this discussion, and the last one was a joke I missed, so perhaps you're joking. Please enlighten me. Maybe use a ;-) next time.

""Slippery slope" arguments are unjustified. But it's not unjustified to say "Hey guys, this is bigotry, let's not go down that road. We're better than that.""

The latter is unjustified if, every time evidence is requested of 'this bigotry', none is provided, or that which is provided doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.

(contd)"However the writer/speaker also has a duty to not say things that will generally be interpreted in ways he claims he doesn't want. A competent writer should be able to tell how his statements will be read by his audience."

I've said it elsewhere, I'll say it here. The use of intentionally provocative language can be justified, and here's the justification for it in the case of unapologetic atheism:

There is a taboo against criticizing religion, and an additional taboo against hurting the religious sensitivities of believers. Both of these taboos are dangerous in that they stifle needed criticism of dangerous religious beliefs.

The unapologetic atheist takes the stance that such taboos need to be challenged strongly. And one of the most effective ways to challenge a taboo is to break the taboo without actually doing anything unethical.

When Rosa Parks challenged the taboo against sitting at the back of the bus, she didn't do it by politely discussing the merits of segregation and discrimination. She challenged the taboo by breaking it unapologetically. She simply sat at the back of the bus, without doing anything unethical.

Oh, sure, racists got offended terribly! How dare she?!

But she didn't actually do anything wrong.

To challenge the taboos against criticizing religion and religious sensitivities, unapologetic atheists often break the taboo intentionally, unapologetically, without actually doing anything unethical. In fact, they see it as an overriding prima facie duty to break the taboo in spite of the fact that some people's over-sensitive feelings might get hurt.

The challenging of dangerous taboos is more important than a few hurt feelings.

So, when you say, "A competent writer should be able to tell how his statements will be read by his audience," yes, I agree. And those provocative statements such as "The God Delusion" or "religion poisons everything" or "Imagine no religion" are intentionally chosen so as to break those taboos. They will offend people, and the authors are quite aware of this, and yet they do it anyway. And in doing so, they are not doing anything unethical. They are not bigots for doing so.

People do not have an inherent human right not to be offended. It would be absurd to try to argue that they should have such a right. (I dare ya.)

Using intentionally provocative language is not inherently bigotry. If people have over-sensitive egos, bound up in their religious beliefs, such that they cannot disentangle their sense of self from their beliefs, then those people need to get over it! We do not have an obligation to respect beliefs. If you can't stand having your beliefs laughed at, then don't have such silly beliefs.

The taboos against criticism of religious beliefs and sensitivities must be challenged. This is the position of unapologetic atheism. Putting up a billboard, poking a hole in a cracker, satirizing institutions, ridiculing beliefs, and contradicting dogmas, are all perfectly legitimate ways of doing this, and we do not need to apologize for doing so.

I am thinking about your post. It is clear you have thought about this. I would like to check if we agree on a couple of points, by example:

Blasphemy: "The Holy Spirit does not exist."Bigotry: "All religious people are idiots."Blasphemy (and not bigotry): "[specific religion] is worthy of condemnation."Bigotry: "All people who follow any are deluded."

And I would like to check that it is your contention that the following is neither blasphemy or bigotry:

"Some religious people are idiots.""Religion in general is worthy of condemnation."

And these are not bigotry:

"Religion caused 9/11.""Religion in general helped cause 9/11 by enabling certain violent religions to develop and continue existing.""Most people who follow [specific religion] are deluded."

And as to the specific question that got a bit involved, allow me to change it. Is criticism of religion only criticism of an abstract? Does criticizing religion reflect upon the people associated with that religion? Does it reflect on religion in general?However, I think your answer was clear enough.

I find that to be a strange position. The message of the billboard is "Stalin was an atheist. Stalin did these bad things. Atheism leads to doing these bad things. Fear atheism if you fear these bad things." As I am an atheist, it is an attack on me. Even if you personally think that the billboard is an ineffective way to communicate this, wouldn't you have to agree that this is the way that most theists would interpret it? Is this not bigoted?

It would also be factually wrong, since atheism per se did not inspire Stalin's wrongdoing.

That doesn't matter. All bigotry is factually wrong - if it wasn't than it wouldn't be bigotry, it would be a public service announcement. The purpose of bigotry isn't to be correct, it is to encourage fear and/or loathing of a group without good reason.

What *would* be bigoted would be a billboard with the quote "the fool says in his heart... he can do no good, he is corrupt, etc." This is clearly targeting actual non-believers as a monolithic group. But something like "atheism leads to sin and corruption" is not bigoted.

Wait, what? How is "The atheist is corrupt" qualitatively different from "atheism leads to corruption"? It's the *exact same message*.

functionally equivalent to "Imagine no relativity" with a picture of Hiroshima before the bomb.

So would you not condemn such a billboard, who's message is clearly "You should oppose all scientific research lest it lead to even more horrific outcomes."? You wouldn't speak against the promotion of an attitude that particle physicists should be shunned and condemned by all moral members of society?

I find it interesting that you shifted 'dangers of religion' to 'fear of religion' to 'fear of religious people'.

Raising consciousness of the dangers of religion is not the same as inciting fear of religious people.

I find it interesting that you never made this connection. If religion is dangerous, we should fear it. And since religion is nothing more than ideas in people's minds, and ideas are impotent without people to act on them, the fact is that what we really have to fear are people who hold religious ideas.

So yes, it is inciting fear of religious people.

And sure, we SHOULD fear some religious people. There are many strains of religion that directly promote suffering and death. But there are many that do not. You are justified in condemning specific religions or specific religious beliefs, but not in condemning ALL religions equally. Some of them really are not bad.

You are misparaphrasing (is that even a word?? I don't know, but it's what you did) Weinberg based on my RE-phrasing.

I used your re-phrasing because I assumed it more accurately reflected your feelings on the subject.

Weinberg targeted religion, not religious people.

You can't have religion without religious people. You can't have blackness without black people. Focus your criticism on things that are ACTUALLY bad, and not on all religions in general.

What?! Are you joking? That's the second silliest thing I've heard in this discussion.

What point do you disagree with? That it was theft (technically fraud, a form of theft), or that hundreds of atheists tried to say "That's not theft at all!". I believe you'd be wrong on both counts. I consider it justified theft, but that's still what it was.

The latter is unjustified if, every time evidence is requested of 'this bigotry', none is provided, or that which is provided doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.

Agreed. But I believe legit evidence has been presented. Please see my last comment here.

(cont)There is a taboo against criticizing religion, and an additional taboo against hurting the religious sensitivities of believers. Both of these taboos are dangerous in that they stifle needed criticism of dangerous religious beliefs.

Agreed 100%.

When Rosa Parks challenged the taboo against sitting at the back of the bus, she didn't do it by politely discussing the merits of segregation and discrimination. She challenged the taboo by breaking it unapologetically. She simply sat at the back of the bus, without doing anything unethical.

I wasn't alive at the time, so please forgive me if I was taught falsehoods, but did Rosa Parks ever say "Whiteness always leads to such oppression. As long as there are white people, there will be discrimination like this."? Or did she, by her actions, merely expose the bigotry and hatred of some white folk, the subset that actually oppressed and discriminated against black folk? There is no shame in criticizing vile religious beliefs. However there is shame in extending this criticism to all religions, even those who have done no wrong.

Using intentionally provocative language is not inherently bigotry. If people have over-sensitive egos, bound up in their religious beliefs, such that they cannot disentangle their sense of self from their beliefs, then those people need to get over it! We do not have an obligation to respect beliefs.

Complete agreement from me. But we DO have an obligation to not lump all theists into the same bucket. Hitler was a theist, does this mean that all theists want to eradicate much of humanity and impose tyranny on the rest? Draw some lines so you don't fall into bigotry!

Again, blasphemy is not bigotry. Try again.

I've never said it is. I think blasphemy is a wonderful thing. But like you say - blasphemy is not bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry. Don't get the two confused. And don't intentionally conflate them so that you can exercise bigotry and then claim "It's only blasphemy, it's ok!"

About Me

When I was in high school, I decided that I wanted to leave the world better off than it would have been if I had not existed. This started a quest, through 12 years of college and on to today, to try to discover what a "better" world consists of. I have written a book describing that journey that you can find on my website. In this blog, I will keep track of the issues I have confronted since then.